[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: ['SERPENTINE LACERTIDS']



darren.naish@port.ac.uk wrote:
> Just a quick note re: the 'non        -serpentine lacertid' thread.. 
> >lacertids are
a specific Old World group of scincomorph lizards (they are >lacertoid
scincomorph scincogekkonomorph sclerroglossans actually) related >to skinks,
cordylids and teiids: 'lacertid' should not be used to >mean 'lizard'. The
group regarded as 'the lizard group' by most people is >the Lacertilia (an
alternative name, Sauria, is now used as a far more 
> inclusive clade of diapsids). Whether Lacertilia includes Serpentes (and 
> Amphisbaenia) depends on your take on squamatan phylogeny.  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Argh, semantics is the one thing in taxonomy that I can honestly say I hate.

While I appreciate the clarification in both your's, and Chris's (Brochu)
post, I am well aware of the family Lacertidae and Old World lacertids.

When I wrote up the non-serpentine etc part, I meant it as Lacertilia and not
Lacertidae. I suppose I was being a bit lazy when I wrote Lacertid instead of
non-serpentine lacertillian (though in all honesty it hadn't crossed my mind
until now), so I guess I had that coming.

In a related topic, I've been told that serpentes & lacertilia are not
formerly recognized taxons in PT. 

Harry W. Greene used lacertilia in his description of snake evolution in his
book: Snakes The Evolution of Mystery in Nature. According to him, lacertilia
was a more accurate term for the suborder for lizards, than sauria, but then
that was 3 years ago and taxonomic nomenclature seems to change faster than
computers, so I suppose they could have changed the more inclusive name
again.

In which case, I suppose I could change the term to "Non-ophidian saurians." I
don't want to do non-serpentean/non-ophidian squamates because then I'm stuck
with explaining away amphisbeanians (which AFAIK still warrant their own
suborder). Hmm, I guess it's a good thing that dinosaurs only spawned one line
of successful descendants :)

At any rate, this is all pretty much irrelevant anyway, since the point I was
trying to make was that we don't go around calling snakes lizards even though
they phylogenetically are. So why should we go around calling birds dinosaurs
other than to make it sound like dinosaurs didn't go extinct. The names are
there to make life easier, so why should we go around confusing the matters
any more.

[Note: In the event of a misread here, I am not saying that we should revert
to the old Linnean system when it comes to studying phylogeny. I'm only saying
that I see no point to calling a sparrow a dinosaur other than for the reasons
mentioned].

Jura

Jurassosaurus's Reptipage: A page devoted to the study of the reptilia:

http://reptilis.webjump.com

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1